COLCHESTER'S High Steward has accused Essex County Council of "operating in secret" over the covenant which exists on the site of the town's old bus station.

Sir Bob Russell submitted Freedom Of Information requests to County Hall asking it to reveal whether discussions over the agreement had taken place.

He also asked for details of any financial agreement involving Essex County Council and Colchester Council or Alumno over what amount of the lease price would go to the authority.

However both requests for information were rejected due to the "commercial confidentiality" of the details.

Sir Bob said: "It is ludicrous and outrageous - an affront to the concept of transparency.

"How can it be considered commercially confidential to state whether or not the two councils have discussed the covenant?

"They are public bodies, there to serve the public interest not deprive the public of information.

"Second, it is of public interest to know if either council has struck a deal with development company Alumno.”

Colchester Council will receive a one-off payment of £980,881 for a 250-year lease agreement if Alumno’s proposed redevelopment of the town’s Cultural Quarter is granted planning permission at appeal.

But it is understood an agreement would need to be reached between Colchester Council, Alumno and Essex County Council regarding the covenant, which dates to 1961, before the student rooms development went ahead.

Sir Bob said: "If the borough and county councils have done a deal over the covenant how can it be said that this is commercially confidential and not in the public interest to disclose?

“I hope one or more of our enlightened borough and county councillors will demand answers. There is no place for secrecy, particularly between two councils.”

A spokesman for County Hall said revealing the details could have damaged the councils positions.

“Both FOIs were refused on the grounds that to offer the information requested would damage our negotiating position – in this case, potentially jeopardising the terms of any future sale," he said.

“Sir Bob is entitled to his view in terms of transparency, but to reveal the information he requested would have potentially damaged the commercial value of any future sale, and therefore cost the taxpayers money.

"So in this case, withholding information from publication clearly outweighs the arguments for releasing it.”